9629

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9629
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Selected NEPA Documents.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

99
(b) all lands established or administered as part of the National Fish
Hatchery System;
(c) all waters and lands acquired for mitigation purposes under the FWCA;
and
(d) all State lands acquired, or developed, or improved for fish and
wildlife conservation, restoration, or management with grants under
Pittman-Robertson (P/R)-Dingell-Johnson (D/J), section 6 of ESA, and the
Anadromous Fish Act of 1965.
(2) DOI Environmental Review Memorandum ER 80-2, June 25, 1980, provides
additional information on the applicability of section 4(f) (refer to Service
NEPA Reference Handbook).
E. 'Constructive Use.' FHWA and Urban Mass Transit Authority joint
regulations define the circumstances under which "constructive use" of
certain protected resources would or would not occur (23 CFR 771.135). For
example, "constructive use" could mean adverse proximity(indirect) effects
of the construction of a highway or airport to a nearby refuge or public
park. In such cases, section 4(f) would apply. Service reviews of highway
and airport proposals should be aware of this circumstance. If
"constructive use" applies, the Service should fully describe the probable
impacts ("use") of the section 4(f} properties.
F. Relationship of Section 4(f) to Grant-in-Aid Programs.
(1) Fish and wildlife resources managed by the States using P-R or D-J
grant-in-aid funds also come under the provisions of section 4(f). The
Service is assigned section 4(f) commenting responsibility for DOT-funded
projects potentially affecting State and local wildlife management lands
(publically-owned) that do not come under the direct management
jurisdiction of the Service. If these State-managed lands or streams will
be impacted by afederally-funded or permitted highway or airport project,
it constitutes a "diversion of funds" as outlined in 50 CFR 80.4 and 80.14,
if P-R or D-J funds were used by the State to enhance fish or wildlife
resources on these areas. The State DOT is responsible for replacing any
P-R/D-J impacted lands according to these provisions. Service reviewers of
such highway or airport projects should be mindful of possible impacts to
these lands.
(2) If the Service determines no impact, its comments should state ,that no
lands are involved which were acquired or are managed with Federal.
grant-in-aid assistance under the Wildlife Restoration Act (P-R Act, Public
Law 75-415) or the Fish Restoration Act (D-J Act - Public Law 81-681).
Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior's regulations in 50 CFR 80.4 and
80.14 are not applicable. If it is determined that there may be impacts to
P-R/D-J lands, the Service's comments should clarify the State's
responsibility for diversion of funds.
6. When Service Lands are Involved in Transportation Projects.
(1) National Wildlife Refuge System Lands.